Utah-LEOs have opened taser hunting season on drivers

[ericfoerster]

Eric, I don't think you are a cop basher. I know you are just adding your point of view here.

 

I’ve seen this similar scenario played out many times over my career so I’ve got a bit of an advantage in dealing with this. Here is a link to the placate and vacate I spoke of earlier:

Link here

 

Many agencies and companies are well versed in this type of action. Our own government has used it for years and it seems to work well for them (not a poke at either the republicans or democrats as they both do it).

 

Departments and command staff often ask for outside “help” during an investigation after they have already given their findings. The Utah Highway Patrol says they side with the officer and they will stick with that finding. My gut tells me the officer may take a short vacation or get some advanced training to appease the public. If so, it’s just to move the problem on. This is done for several reasons. The first is the need to return to normal. The second is lawsuit protection against the inevitable failure to train or failure to supervise litigation that will surely come when/if the officer does this again.

 

I still disagree with the premise that the officer bears the entire burden of responsibility here. I think the state, by keeping the charge, has taken the officers side that the stop was valid. There may be prima facia evidence contained in the first part of the video that we don’t see.

[russell_bynum]

I believe that the motorist truly is perplexed at the reason for the stop.

 

So what?

 

I got stopped once, for going 41 in a 35. At the time that I saw the LEO, I was accelerating gently, having just left a stop sign. When I saw him, I looked at my speedo: 30. He pulled in behind me, lit me up, and pulled me over.

 

...and wrote me for 41 in a 35...as verified by his radar gun.

 

What happened? There was a van overtaking me about the same time I looked up and saw the cop. No doubt, his radar gun got the van and not my little car.

 

I explained that to the officer, and he said "You were side by side."

 

Me: "Right...for an instant as he was passing me."

 

Officer: "I'm writing you for 41 in a 35."

 

Me: "OK."

 

I was the very definition of perplexed. Then I was pissed because I was so CLEARLY not guilty of the infraction, and he so CLEARLY didn't care.

 

Guess what? I still remained polite and cooperative, signed the ticket, and went on my merry way.

[ericfoerster]

and went on my merry way

 

I'd still taser you

[ESokoloff]

The motorist turned & walked away from the officer with his hand in his pocket so he deserved what he got but I still feel that if the officer handled it better then perhaps the situation would not have deteriorated to the extent that it did.

 

Keep up your good works out there

[ESokoloff]

Your post reminds me of my first two tickets.

I was 17 or 18 & ridding my 1st bike, a Honda 1972 XL250.

 

In order to cross a major intersection that the bike would not trigger the light, I would ride up the sidewalk & hit the walk button.

One time a LAPD motor COP saw me & wrote me up. I attempted to plead my case to him but no dice.

 

The other ticket was for riding over a fire hose.

Being the inquisitive individual that I was/am I came upon the scene of a recent fire & rode down an ally to get a better view. I came upon a fire hose or perhaps hoses (I don't remember). I remember that I did not ride over them but rather walked/powered the bike over them.

When I reached the end of the alley, I was greeted by a pack of LAPD motor COPs.

Yep, one of them wrote me up for riding over a fire hose even after I expanded (truthfully) that I had walked the bike over it/them

[Roadwolf]

Hey Russell,

 

Not to be argumentative here, but in your previous posts on this subject you seem to portray the notion that you do not argue or make your case with the officer on the side of the road, you leave that for traffic court (I hope I am remembering your numerous posts on this subject accurately). But did you not try to explain or present your case, albeit it briefly to this officer who pulled you over for 41 in a 35? On the side of the road?

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Hey Russell,

 

Not to be argumentative here, but in your previous posts on this subject you seem to portray the notion that you do not argue or make your case with the officer on the side of the road, you leave that for traffic court (I hope I am remembering your numerous posts on this subject accurately). But did you not try to explain or present your case, albeit it briefly to this officer who pulled you over for 41 in a 35? On the side of the road?

 

As long as you're doing whatever the officer tells you to do while simultaneously offering your explanation, there's no problem. But if the guy in charge - the one with the gun, tazer, pepper spray and nightstick, and mild (but fully justifiable) paranoia - ignores you, yelling at him or refusing to comply with his instructions until he agrees to hear your story will not improve the situation.

[smiller]

We seem to have a lot of posts pointing out that one shouldn't argue by the side of the road but no one is debating that point. I think that the issue here involves the LEOs poor handling of the agitated driver. I'm sure that this isn't the first one he's run into, nor will it be the last. There's definitely an improvement opportunity there and hopefully he'll be a little more professional next time, and that's all most of us are saying.

[Stir]

and went on my merry way

 

I'd still taser you

 

WAIT YOUR TURN! Actually, this could be a fund raiser activity. Taser the bounce. $5 a shot. 1/2 the money would go to the Russell Bynum Defense fund.

[russell_bynum]

Hey Russell,

 

Not to be argumentative here, but in your previous posts on this subject you seem to portray the notion that you do not argue or make your case with the officer on the side of the road, you leave that for traffic court (I hope I am remembering your numerous posts on this subject accurately). But did you not try to explain or present your case, albeit it briefly to this officer who pulled you over for 41 in a 35? On the side of the road?

 

As long as you're doing whatever the officer tells you to do while simultaneously offering your explanation, there's no problem. But if the guy in charge - the one with the gun, tazer, pepper spray and nightstick, and mild (but fully justifiable) paranoia - ignores you, yelling at him or refusing to comply with his instructions until he agrees to hear your story will not improve the situation.

 

Exactly.

[russell_bynum]

and went on my merry way

 

I'd still taser you

 

WAIT YOUR TURN! Actually, this could be a fund raiser activity. Taser the bounce. $5 a shot. 1/2 the money would go to the Russell Bynum Defense fund.

 

[MotorinLA]

[hijack]

The Police have no obligation to help you with your own defense. Furthermore, your failure to monitor your own gas level is your problem, so why are you trying to paint yourself as ‘the victim’ in this incident. That fact that you caused your own emergency is not a justification for committing a traffic violation, nor is it an explanation that would have gotten your citation overturned by a Traffic Commissioner in any of our courts.

 

What is this, some kind of "whack-a-mole" game? Even when I was an IRS agent, we were taught to seek the truth, whether in the favor of the taxpayer or the government. Whatever happened to protect and serve?

 

What truth? That he ran the stop sign? If you read the original post by sgendler, you surely noticed that he freely admits to committing the violation, he simply feels that he was justified in doing it.

 

I'm pretty sure you didn't dismiss a whole lot of your IRS investigations, simply because the person investigated had some legally insignificant excuse for not paying their taxes. Nor do i imagine that as an IRS agent you offered up unexploited tax loop-holes to the people you were investigating.

 

In the incident described by sgendler there was no hiding of the truth, the officer simply did not see sgendler's justification for running the sign as significant. About 80% of the motorists I ticket have some excuse or hardship to justify their actions, which doesn't change or legally justify the fact that they committed a traffic violation. I'm sure many of these people go home feeling the same way as sgendler, namely that they have been wronged.

 

Bottom line is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and choices. There are no traffic laws in California that state, "You must obey this law, unless you have one of the following excuses...". If you elect to disobey the law, then be prepared to accept that law enforcement personnel may not accept your reason as valid.

 

As much as people would like to convince you that they had 'no other option', this is generally not true. The truth is generally that they had no other option that was as convenient to them. sgendler could have pulled his car to the curb and called a tow truck, or walked to the gas station to get his gas. Yes, it would have been more inconvenient and probably more expensive, but it would have been legal.

 

He made a CHOICE and is upset that the police officer didn't agree with that choice. Period. There is no wrong-doing on the part of the officer, nor is there some grand conspiracy to 'get' sgendler.

 

[/hijack]

[Dave McReynolds]

What truth? That he ran the stop sign? If you read the original post by sgendler, you surely noticed that he freely admits to committing the violation, he simply feels that he was justified in doing it.

 

I'm pretty sure you didn't dismiss a whole lot of your IRS investigations, simply because the person investigated had some legally insignificant excuse for not paying their taxes. Nor do i imagine that as an IRS agent you offered up unexploited tax loop-holes to the people you were investigating.

 

In the incident described by sgendler there was no hiding of the truth, the officer simply did not see sgendler's justification for running the sign as significant. About 80% of the motorists I ticket have some excuse or hardship to justify their actions, which doesn't change or legally justify the fact that they committed a traffic violation. I'm sure many of these people go home feeling the same way as sgendler, namely that they have been wronged.

 

Bottom line is that people need to take responsibility for their own actions and choices. There are no traffic laws in California that state, "You must obey this law, unless you have one of the following excuses...". If you elect to disobey the law, then be prepared to accept that law enforcement personnel may not accept your reason as valid.

 

As much as people would like to convince you that they had 'no other option', this is generally not true. The truth is generally that they had no other option that was as convenient to them. sgendler could have pulled his car to the curb and called a tow truck, or walked to the gas station to get his gas. Yes, it would have been more inconvenient and probably more expensive, but it would have been legal.

 

He made a CHOICE and is upset that the police officer didn't agree with that choice. Period. There is no wrong-doing on the part of the officer, nor is there some grand conspiracy to 'get' sgendler.

 

You're probably right, and that's probably why I'm not an IRS agent anymore.

 

Once, after I became a more senior IRS agent, I was assigned to hear appeals of other agents' decisions. Sort of a quasi-judge, the effort being to try to settle as many cases as possible without the taxpayer and the IRS having to actually go to Tax Court.

 

I remember one case in particular. It wasn't the main issue of the case, but in the course of discussions, it came out that the taxpayer was making payments on a prior tax debt, and his monthly payments were less than the amount of interest that was accruing on the debt. So even though he was making payments, each month he would go deeper and deeper in debt to the IRS.

 

I asked him how he got into that situation, and he explained that he had been a successful real estate salesman, and had gotten a divorce. The divorce had thrown him into a real tailspin, and he had lost his motivation to sell real estate while he was going through it. But his child support payments had been set at a level that matched his earlier income. So he made the child support payments, which he felt obligated to do and also needed to do to stay out of jail, rather than sending in his estimated income tax payments.

 

He had lost his house in the divorce, and the IRS had seized his car. He essentially had nothing, other than a little money pulled in from selling refrigerators at Sears or something. He felt that he had gotten his emotions under control, and could go back to selling real estate again, but had no car to do it with.

 

So I walked him over to his case officer, and basically repeated the story. The case officer whipped out the IRS collections manual, and pointed me to a page that supported what he had done, and said that if the guy got another car, they would seize that too.

 

So when I got the guy back to my office, knowing how the IRS works, I told him that if it were me, I would stop sending the IRS any money. That the little money he sent the IRS was just enough to keep his case active. If he didn't send any more money, they would hound him for six months or so, and then send his case to the dead file. He could then get another car and begin to sell real estate again, and then maybe he would get a chance to get caught up, or at least get enough money together to hire someone to put together an offer-in-compromise for him.

 

At the conclusion of this meeting, I decided that if I was advising taxpayers to not pay the IRS, then maybe I was in the wrong line of work.

 

Just like the excuses you hear every day on the road, right?

[tallman]

Dave,

Glad you're happier now.

In Sam's original post about his ticket, he said he passed a last gas for XX sign, but guessed he could make it and didn't want to stop as it was dark, long day, passenger wanted to get home, etc...

He didn't suddenly run out of gas due to mechanical failure or a malfuntioning gauge.

He took a chance, and ran out of gas.

Yes, the lack of forward motion was inconvenient. But, there was a gas station at the end of the exit and the inconvenience would've been short lived.

This is my memory of his post, and basically what I said to him then.

Sam's a very articulate person who contributes a lot to this site.

However, in both cases, a driver violated traffic law(s) and was observed doing so.

Whether they felt there were exigent circumstances, or not, doesn't matter. No one was rushing a bleeding person to a hospital. (BTDT, was stopped, motorcycle cop gave us an escort to the hospital )

If you get stopped. Follow directions.

If you decide to tell your story, go ahead, but when storytime is over, play nice, or accept the consequences.

[Dave McReynolds]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Sam didn't commit the traffic violation for which he got the ticket.

 

Probably I should have just kept my mouth shut in the IRS case too.

 

Wouldn't it be a nicer world if we all just tried to help each other out?

 

I remember one time on an Arizona highway when I was in college and I threw a fan belt on my old VW. You could get a ticket for breaking down on that highway. I actually had a spare fan belt, and stood there with it in my hands, looking down at the pulleys, and wondering what to do with the thing (I've never been much at mechanics). A highway patrol car stopped, the officer got out, got his hands dirty helping me to put the fan belt on, and then drove off. No ticket!

 

What would have been the harm if the officer had helped Sam push his bike up to the gas station rather than giving him a ticket?

[Roadwolf]

Dave,

 

Let me chime in here...

 

What you are advocating here is basically Grace. As opposed to Legalism in the other viewpoint. Following the letter of the law is very black and white and keeps order, but in the end leaves you kind of hollow in certain situations (your IRS story for example). The officer in that situation had two choices to make, following his duty to uphold the law that he is sworn to do, which I am glad he does every day, or use his discretion to let a person off with a warning. It has happened to me recently in a traffic stop... off with a written warning... the traffic officer's way of letting me off for something I admittedly did wrong... Grace. Why he did it, I will never know.

 

Wish more of it happened in everyday life. And just not in traffic stops.

[jaytee]

On a related "grace" note, has anyone here in CA (maybe other states like this???) noticed that you basicalyl *never* get a warning from CHP, but often get warnings for minor traffic violations from municipal police?

 

Or is it just me?

 

JT

[tallman]

I don't think anyone's arguing that Sam didn't commit the traffic violation for which he got the ticket.

 

Probably I should have just kept my mouth shut in the IRS case too.

 

Wouldn't it be a nicer world if we all just tried to help each other out?

 

I remember one time on an Arizona highway when I was in college and I threw a fan belt on my old VW. You could get a ticket for breaking down on that highway. I actually had a spare fan belt, and stood there with it in my hands, looking down at the pulleys, and wondering what to do with the thing (I've never been much at mechanics). A highway patrol car stopped, the officer got out, got his hands dirty helping me to put the fan belt on, and then drove off. No ticket!

 

What would have been the harm if the officer had helped Sam push his bike up to the gas station rather than giving him a ticket?

 

Dave,

I'm aware you can get such a ticket.

Coming home from 21st B'day celebration, I was turning left on to my street when part of my VW bus exhaust fell off.

I'm on a semi-circular street with about 10 houses, it's after midnight, no traffic, 50 yards from home, of course the blue (red back then???)lights come on.

License and registration.

Yes sir.

You're aware that you're driving on an expired license?

Why, no, I have to the end of the month sir.

Nope, it expired 15 minutes ago, at midnight, on your birthdate.

I realize Sam is not arguing he didn't commit the violation. But, he did seem to feel it was justified due to XXX, and that the LEO should see things from Sam's POV.

We've all (probably)BTDT too.

I wish he hadn't gotten the ticket. I wish the LEO had driven him over and back w/some gas and told him to have a nice night.

Didn't happen.

 

At this point in my life, I know there are times that circumstances may present a choice, pass on the double line, speed to avoid a bottleneck, whatever.

My point is, IF you get stopped, play by their rules, or prepare to enter a different level of awareness.

Ommmmmm

[russell_bynum]

On a related "grace" note, has anyone here in CA (maybe other states like this???) noticed that you basicalyl *never* get a warning from CHP, but often get warnings for minor traffic violations from municipal police?

 

Or is it just me?

 

JT

 

I don't get pulled over very often, but since I moved here in 1995:

 

2 CHP stops: 1 ticket.

1 local cop stop: 1 ticket.

 

FWIW, In both cases, I was doing the thing that they wrote me for.

[ghaverkamp]

On a related "grace" note, has anyone here in CA (maybe other states like this???) noticed that you basicalyl *never* get a warning from CHP, but often get warnings for minor traffic violations from municipal police?

 

Or is it just me?

 

I've never been pulled over by a CHP (*knocking furiously on wood*), but I've been given warnings of a sort by them while moving. I had one pull up behind me, flash his lights and flick his siren, then pull off while motioning to me in a way I interpreted to mean "Slow down." (I was about 15 over at the time.) I had another catch up to me after I passed them speeding, blare at me over his speaker -- no idea what he said -- then leave me be.

 

Actually been pulled over and warned by two local sheriffs. Ticketed by a local officer (Petaluma.) Ticketed by a Massachusetts Statie.

 

Never Tased.

[MotorinLA]

Dave,

 

Let me chime in here...

 

What you are advocating here is basically Grace. As opposed to Legalism in the other viewpoint. Following the letter of the law is very black and white and keeps order, but in the end leaves you kind of hollow in certain situations (your IRS story for example). The officer in that situation had two choices to make, following his duty to uphold the law that he is sworn to do, which I am glad he does every day, or use his discretion to let a person off with a warning. It has happened to me recently in a traffic stop... off with a written warning... the traffic officer's way of letting me off for something I admittedly did wrong... Grace. Why he did it, I will never know.

 

Wish more of it happened in everyday life. And just not in traffic stops.

 

I obviously don’t know what happened during your traffic stop, however, it sounds like you assumed responsibility for your actions/violation. I generally don’t issue many warnings, but the few I do give are usually given to drivers who take responsibility for what they did, state in a believeable manner that they made a mistake or bad choice and tell me that they’ll try no to do it again in the future. There are also a few people that fall into the category of individuals who truly do need a break, like the one mentioned by Dave, however, most excuses I hear consist of some form of ‘it wasn’t my fault’ statement (sorry, Sam).

 

Now, all that being said, did the officer that cited Sam do anything wrong/illegal? No. Could he have given him a warning (2am, no traffic, slow speed roll through the stop sign)? Sure. Again I obviously wasn’t present at the scene, but I suspect a big part of the reason Sam got a ticket was that he wanted the officer to accept his excuse and may not have conceided that he did anything illegal. In that case I probably would have issued him a cite, too.

[OldMotor]

The use of the taser was not for failing to sign. It was for walking away. Would it be better if this guy got into his vehicle and a pursuit started?

[ghaverkamp]

The use of the taser was not for failing to sign. It was for walking away. Would it be better if this guy got into his vehicle and a pursuit started?

 

What would have been the point of pursuing? Aren't the UHP equipped to find the dangerous speeder? (And, of course, I didn't say he was Tased for failing to sign.)

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The use of the taser was not for failing to sign. It was for walking away. Would it be better if this guy got into his vehicle and a pursuit started?

 

What would have been the point of pursuing? Aren't the UHP equipped to find the dangerous speeder? (And, of course, I didn't say he was Tased for failing to sign.)

 

In the interest of public safety, it's better to stop a potentially dangerous pursuit before it starts.

[ghaverkamp]

In the interest of public safety, it's better to stop a potentially dangerous pursuit before it starts.

 

Which can be done two ways. Tase a guy who's heading back to his car, who hasn't been violent, but merely irritated, or let him drive off without pursuing.

 

Was he an imminent threat to others? There's no evidence of that. Why pursue at all? Again, surely the UHP have the capability to look up where to find the guy. They've already filled out the citation, so they know all about the guy.

[ESokoloff]

..... They've already filled out the citation, so they know all about the guy.

 

I believe the motorist paperwork was in the possession of Trooper Gardner at this point.

[ericfoerster]

77-7-7. Force in making arrest.

If a person is being arrested and flees or forcibly resists after being informed of the intention to make the arrest, the person arresting may use reasonable force to effect the arrest. Deadly force may be used only as provided in Section 76-2-404.

 

The above quote is from the Utah Penal Code. There is no duty/obligation to retreat at the point the suspect walks off. What information is retained by the trooper does not matter at all. I never take the information available on the license on face value. The world in which we live is way too mobile.

 

I think the guy walking off is sufficient enough proof to me that he was NOT complying with the orders to put his hands behind his back. I think we are also assuming here that everyone knows that order means you are under arrest.

 

Can you imagine a society where people just walk off from peace officers when they don’t like the reason they are stopped. I’ll agree they know probably know where to find the suspect. I can also assure you that finding a person based on drivers license information alone is not always the best way accomplish this task. Collection of fines and fees for out of jurisdiction offenders is a pain and often times these fines are never collected.

Is he from a state that is in the Non-Resident Violator Compact? Has he been run for warrants? Is he a fugative from justice? There are too many variables here for the trooper to find out during a roadside interview with a suspect who is obviously not wanting to cooperate.

[ESokoloff]

For the record officer... er Eric, I was not trying to make a point, rather supporting Greg's statement that the UHP had the motorist info (literally).

 

Carry on

[ericfoerster]

Carry on

 

I'm still going to tase Russell

[Firefight911]

In the interest of public safety, it's better to stop a potentially dangerous pursuit before it starts.

 

Which can be done two ways. Tase a guy who's heading back to his car, who hasn't been violent, but merely irritated, or let him drive off without pursuing.

 

Was he an imminent threat to others? There's no evidence of that. Why pursue at all? Again, surely the UHP have the capability to look up where to find the guy. They've already filled out the citation, so they know all about the guy.

 

Obviously, you don't watch COPS!

 

Afterall, the information the bad guys give is always accurate and truthful. NOT!!!

 

To make a point, I was at work as a firefighter/paramedic and we get called out. This individual is on the brink of death and the person who can save his life won't tell me what he took because he is afraid he might get in trouble. Sure enough, he codes after getting to the hospital because they didn't know what they were dealing with.

 

Or how about the DUI guy who only had "a couple beers", and proceeds to blow a .28 BAC.

[ericfoerster]

Or how about the DUI guy who only had "a couple beers", and proceeds to blow a .28 BAC.

 

Hey Phil, I arrested him once

 

Just for that I'll let you tase Russell as well

[Firefight911]

Or how about the DUI guy who only had "a couple beers", and proceeds to blow a .28 BAC.

 

Hey Phil, I arrested him once

 

Just for that I'll let you tase Russell as well

 

Cigars are on the way!!!!

 

 

Hmmm, now to imagine the floppy chicken called Russell! Could put new meaning to the term, 'Bounce.'

[russell_bynum]

Or how about the DUI guy who only had "a couple beers", and proceeds to blow a .28 BAC.

 

Hey Phil, I arrested him once

 

Just for that I'll let you tase Russell as well

 

I ain't gonna come to Torrey next time. I'm too skeert.

[motorman587]

In the interest of public safety, it's better to stop a potentially dangerous pursuit before it starts.

 

Which can be done two ways. Tase a guy who's heading back to his car, who hasn't been violent, but merely irritated, or let him drive off without pursuing.

 

Was he an imminent threat to others? There's no evidence of that. Why pursue at all? Again, surely the UHP have the capability to look up where to find the guy. They've already filled out the citation, so they know all about the guy.

 

Refusing to sign, refusing to comply, calling the Trooper an idoit, walking away with hands in pockets, are all signs of someone that surely is resisting and is surely on the high end of becoming violent.

[Husker Red]

I've read the whole post but finally got a chance to watch the youtube video last night. That was not what I was expecting at all. I'm usually a law and order kind of guy, and I completely understand the importance of learning to "sit down and shut up."

 

However, I felt the officer was WAY too quick to taser that guy. Completely unnecessary. Sure, he didn't act illegally by tasering that guy, but there's no way you can honestly say he handled the situation well. The speeder and the officer were both complete jerks, but that officer is supposed to be a professional. And then embellishing how he explained the situation to the violater... BS.

[casticus]

Hey Big Arn you ain't gonna like this but....

 

In Michigan (and I think the U.S.A.) it isn't legal for a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest...

 

The remedy for an unlawful arrest is after the fact.

[BigArn]

David, I try my best to stay out of Meechigan.

[BigArn]

In the interest of public safety, it's better to stop a potentially dangerous pursuit before it starts.

 

Which can be done two ways. Tase a guy who's heading back to his car, who hasn't been violent, but merely irritated, or let him drive off without pursuing.

 

Was he an imminent threat to others? There's no evidence of that. Why pursue at all? Again, surely the UHP have the capability to look up where to find the guy. They've already filled out the citation, so they know all about the guy.

 

Refusing to sign, refusing to comply, calling the Trooper an idoit, walking away with hands in pockets, are all signs of someone that surely is resisting and is surely on the high end of becoming violent.

 

John, Well if the Trooper is a idiot, then the guy was just telling the truth.

[jaytee]

...However, I felt the officer was WAY too quick to taser that guy. Completely unnecessary. Sure, he didn't act illegally by tasering that guy, but there's no way you can honestly say he handled the situation well. ...that officer is supposed to be a professional. And then embellishing how he explained the situation to the violater... BS.

 

Unfortuantely this type of use of the taser is not an isolated case. More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

The reasons for this seem very complicated and there are a lot of factors at work here. I believe that this is the reason that many departments are reviewing the usage of tasers and the guidlines for when they should be used. As more citizens are tased in questionable circustances generating bad publicity for both tasers and the departments, I believe that there is a real fear that the departments could lose the taser as a non-lethal form of protection.

 

JT

[russell_bynum]

More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

GOOD!!!!! I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

[ericfoerster]

More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

Punishment ??? Prove your statement.

 

The deployment of the taser here is not in question to most LEO’s. If you look at several factors you can quickly determine the use of the taser was prudent for several reasons.

 

The officer was alone with an obviously upset person.

The suspect appeared to have something in his pocket on the right side.

The incident took place on the traffic side of SUV. Not a good place to go “hands on” and get yourself thrown into traffic.

The suspect refused to do anything the officer asked.

 

As an officer you have to ask what tool would most effectively end this situation with the least amount force and possible injury. If the stop were on the non-traffic side I’d have gone with a simple leg sweep with a dose of pepper.

I think a lot questions would be answered if we knew where the taser was in their use of force continuum. Some agencies have the taser prior to hands on and others it is after.

I’d still argue that going into a hands situation on that side of the car is bad news.

[BigArn]

More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

GOOD!!!!! I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

 

So your for a "Police State" then. Do what I say or I'll punish you.

Why do you hate our freedom??

[ericfoerster]

Why do you hate our freedom??

 

You must not be merican

[russell_bynum]

More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

GOOD!!!!! I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever.

 

So your for a "Police State" then. Do what I say or I'll punish you.

Why do you hate our freedom??

 

No, I'm not for a police state, and I'm a big fan of our freedoms. But, if a LEO tells you to do something, you freakin' do it.

 

You can fight it later in court...the time for that isn't by the side of the road.

 

It isn't like we're talking about Police coming in and stealing our stuff, forcing us to vote certain ways, etc. This was really simple and what the officer was commanding was well within the law.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Unfortuantely this type of use of the taser is not an isolated case. More and more tasers...are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

"Punishment" would be an appropriate name for an action if it occurred after the full compliance of the arrestee had been obtained. Saw a video clip on the news this morning of a car chase suspect who was running on foot and finally belly-flopped onto the grass, spread-eagled in obvious submission; the video then shows multiple officers punching and kicking him while he's laying on the ground. THAT's punishment, and it's innappropriate at this phase. Punishment is reserved for the courts and prisons.

 

Actions taken in order to obtain compliance not willingly given are rightly called coercion. And if someone is not promptly complying the officer's instructions - and in fact seems inclined to clearly disobey the instructions and escalate the situation, e.g. by sticking their hands into their pockets and/or getting into their car and driving away - isn't that what all of the officer's tools are for? To coerce the arrestee into compliance?

[russell_bynum]

Actions taken in order to obtain compliance not willingly given are rightly called coercion. And if someone is not promptly complying the officer's instructions - and in fact seems inclined to clearly disobey the instructions and escalate the situation, e.g. by sticking their hands into their pockets and/or getting into their car and driving away - isn't that what all of the officer's tools are for? To coerce the arrestee into compliance?

 

Exactly.

[BigArn]

Why do you hate our freedom??

 

You must not be merican

 

Eric, you see the word American, might as well picture me then, got it.

 

And I never heard a response to why Texas is way ahead of the game for putting people to death, and your words saying that people tend to obey the law in Texas.

[ericfoerster]

I answered it before:

 

It’s because we have an overabundance of electricity and that is good way to burn off the excess.

 

 

It's also because we are mericans...by God

[BigArn]

I answered it before:

 

It’s because we have an overabundance of electricity and that is good way to burn off the excess.

 

 

It's also because we are mericans...by God

 

Just as I thought.

[motorman587]

More and more tasers, both shot, and on drive mode (placing against the suspects body then activating), are being used by law enforcement as a type of punishment for not following directions or not immediately complying with the officer's instructions.

 

Punishment ??? Prove your statement.

 

The deployment of the taser here is not in question to most LEO’s. If you look at several factors you can quickly determine the use of the taser was prudent for several reasons.

 

The officer was alone with an obviously upset person.

The suspect appeared to have something in his pocket on the right side.

The incident took place on the traffic side of SUV. Not a good place to go “hands on” and get yourself thrown into traffic.

The suspect refused to do anything the officer asked.

 

As an officer you have to ask what tool would most effectively end this situation with the least amount force and possible injury. If the stop were on the non-traffic side I’d have gone with a simple leg sweep with a dose of pepper.

I think a lot questions would be answered if we knew where the taser was in their use of force continuum. Some agencies have the taser prior to hands on and others it is after.

I’d still argue that going into a hands situation on that side of the car is bad news.

 

Our policy is active resisting meaning, as in the video walking away. My supervisor and my department would also have hard time on the communication skills the Utah Trooper had.